Local Government

Summary

Some years ago, Mr C received a lifetime ban from council facilities. He complained to us that this was unfair, and that the council had a duty to provide him with access to such facilities.

We upheld his first complaint, as our investigation found that the council should have offered Mr C a date when the ban would be reviewed. We noted that the council had agreed to meet Mr C to review the ban and that they had noted the gap in their policy, and were also reviewing this. However, we saw no evidence to suggest that the council had a duty to provide Mr C with access to leisure facilities, and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with a copy of the updated policy, considering the failings identified; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C reported that the council stopped his refuse collection. He said that he was later informed that a neighbour had denied the council refuse vehicles access to the private road running past his home. The council then made new arrangements for refuse collection via a concrete plinth at the end of the private road. Mr C was unhappy that his service had been changed and he told us that he had not been told the reason for the change or given any kind of notice. Mr C was also unhappy as it had taken the council approximately six weeks to organise a new collection location. In addition Mr C felt that the council had not communicated effectively with him and in particular had not adhered to his request to only be contacted in writing.

We upheld Mr C's complaint that the council had unreasonably delayed organising a new collection point, but we did not make any recommendations as the council had already offered an apology within their final response.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the council had not informed him of a change of service prior to it taking place. This was because the council provided evidence that they had met with Mr C at his home prior to the change to tell him that his refuse collection would be disrupted. Soon after they told Mr C that the reason for this was that a neighbour had denied access to the private road. We also did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the council's communication with him. Although there was matters of communication that could have been managed more effectively by the council, they did keep Mr C informed about the refuse situation.

Finally, we found that Mr C's request for the identity of the neighbour who had denied access to the private road was dealt with as a Freedom of Information issue and the council communicated effectively about the progress of this request. We explained to Mr C that he should direct any dissatisfaction he had with the outcome of that request to the Scottish Information Commissioner.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had failed to follow proper planning procedures in allowing a developer to alter their masterplan (a plan that describes and maps an overall development concept, including present and future land use) after public consultation had been carried out. Mr C said that this had resulted in his land being included in the masterplan without his involvement. Mr C said that the council had approved the altered masterplan, which had placed him at risk of significant financial loss. He noted that a subsequent planning application he had made had been rejected, on the grounds that his land was not approved for residential development under the masterplan.

The council said that their role was not to inform landowners of the provisions of the masterplan and that the onus was on the developer to show they had engaged with stakeholders. In this instance, the developer had provided evidence that they had contacted Mr C, but he had not responded. The council believed it was appropriate for them to have considered and approved the amended masterplan at the relevant committee meeting, which took place after the public consultation stage.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers who said that the masterplan process placed no obligations on the council to notify stakeholders who might be affected. He also said that the expectation under the masterplan process was that landowners who believed their interests might be affected would engage with the developer. He noted that the masterplan did not give the developer planning permission to carry out work, which required a separate, formal planning application. He said in his view the council had acted reasonably. In light of this, we found no evidence that the council acted unreasonably in their handling of the masterplan process.

Summary

Mr C complained that a council advisory service did not have permission to work with his children. Mr C thought that the service had a duty to validate information provided by potential service users before offering a support service. Mr C told us that the council failed to reply to two letters he wrote to them.

We found no evidence that the service had a duty to work in the way that Mr C would have preferred. Mr C did not dispute that his former partner had given consent and we found that this consent was sufficient to allow the council to provide a service to the children.

The council acknowledged that they had not answered two letters sent directly to the service as they should have done. They told us that steps had been taken to ensure that this would not happen again and had apologised to Mr C.

When it was originally published in February 2015, this case was wrongly categorised as 'not upheld'.  The correct category is 'some upheld'.

Summary

Mrs C complained to us about her dissatisfaction with the council's investigation into her complaints about bullying of her children at their former school. She said that the school had failed to make her aware of their anti-bullying policy; had not contacted her when one of her children was hit during a playground incident; failed to properly manage bullying against another of her children; and that the head teacher had not tried to speak with Mrs C's husband when he notified the school that the children would not be returning. Mrs C told us that the head teacher's own investigation had contained glaring inaccuracies, but the council had not upheld her complaints.

Our investigation found that Mrs C had been made aware that the school had an anti-bullying policy, as it was summarised in the handbook that she would have received when her children were enrolled. We did not uphold that complaint, although we made a recommendation. We also did not uphold the complaint about the council's investigation of Mrs C's complaint about the head teacher. They had found that the head teacher dealt appropriately with the matter, and we agreed that this was something for the council to decide.

We did, however, uphold her complaints about the investigation into lack of communication and failure to manage bullying. On communication, we found that the investigation was flawed, as the council's files showed that they initially found fault with the school's handling of the playground incident, but then changed their decision and did not uphold the complaint. We found no evidence of new or further information having been provided before the decision was changed, and we took the view that the investigation relied too heavily on interviews, and did not seek to verify the facts with evidence. On bullying, we found that the council's investigation placed too much reliance on the head teacher's assurances that the school had properly managed the bullying. Again, the investigation had not tried to verify this as they should have done by checking the school records etc.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reinforce with the school the need to ensure that both the council's and the school's own policy on anti-bullying are being complied with;
• apologise to Mrs C for the council's failure to investigate her complaint about this issue properly and fully, and the failure of the school to notify her when the incident occurred;
• consider how best to ensure in the light of our findings that the process for investigation into reports of bullying is clearly set out, including parental involvement, and full records are kept of the investigation and its outcomes;
• apologise to Mrs C for the council's failure to investigate her complaint about the bullying of her child not being managed properly and fully by the school; and
• remind staff of the importance of considering records and evidencing decision-making at Stage 2 of the council's complaints procedure.

Summary

Mr C lived in a council property between July 2011 and March 2014 during which time he suffered a number of incidences of water penetration which appeared to come from the property above. He said that, as a consequence, his personal property had been damaged and that the house was not wind and watertight. He wanted to be rehoused. He complained that it was not until February 2014, when the problem was confirmed to be a systemic one probably related to the installation of cavity wall insulation a number of years previously, that he was offered permanent rehousing.

Our investigation showed that while there were a number of incidences of water penetration, on each occasion and within a reasonable time, the council had attended to complete remedial works. It was also shown that the problems at Mr C's house were not necessarily related to weather conditions and that the council had investigated potential areas of concern in an attempt to eliminate the problem. There were also difficulties with access, in particular to the neighbouring property where it was thought the problem was originating. A subsequent architect's report indicated that the cause of the problem was likely to be systemic and, therefore, Mr C was rehoused. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C, who is an advice worker, complained that the council had charged her client (Ms A) rent for a property that was uninhabitable. After taking on a new tenancy, Ms A had complained to the council that she had been unable to live in the property since the tenancy commenced due to water ingress and dampness. The council agreed to decant her to another property. The council investigated Ms A's complaint and agreed to a rent abatement (refund on rent due), but Ms A was unhappy that the refund was not backdated to when she said she was unable to live in the property, which was a few months before she contacted the council about this matter. When the council agreed to decant Ms A, they did not charge rent at the decant property which meant that Ms A could not claim housing benefit that she said she was due.

We considered the correspondence with the council, records of payments and the tenancy agreement as well as the council's guidance notes for rent abatement and decant procedures. We found that the council had followed their procedures and had reasonably awarded a rent abatement from when they were informed by Ms A that she was not able to live in the property until she moved into decant property which later became her permanent residency. The council also had acted within their guidelines regarding charging Ms A for the original property and not the decant and that she had been paid housing benefit due to her in line with housing benefit regulations. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council seized his vehicle from his private land many years ago and arranged for it to be destroyed. He said he reported the theft of the vehicle to the police at the time but that he only recently learned, through contact with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), that the council had removed it. He raised concerns that they had acted illegally in doing so.

The council told Mr C that they no longer held records of events dating that far back. They confirmed this to us, advising that they only retain records for six years. We asked Mr C to provide a copy of the information from the DVLA but he did not do so. In the circumstances, we were unable to evidence what happened to Mr C's vehicle.

We noted that, under the terms of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984, the council have legal powers to remove vehicles from private land if they are considered to have been abandoned. They are required to take certain steps before doing so. However, as we were unable to see what, if any, actions they took in this case we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C made a claim to the council for damage from a road accident caused by a pothole, saying that they had not maintained the road in line with their procedures. The council refused his claim, as they said they had complied with their procedures for inspecting the road, and repaired the pothole within the required time-frame. They also said the pothole was less than the minimum depth required for them to be liable for the accident. Mr C disagreed with several of these findings, and complained to the council that they had not handled his claim reasonably. They apologised for delays in responding, but did not agree that they had relied on inaccurate information. Mr C was dissatisfied with the council's response, and complained to us about their handling of his claim and complaint.

We found that the council had used inaccurate information when determining his claim, as they had used inspection dates for the wrong route and had relied on a measurement that they acknowledged was probably an estimate rather than an actual measurement. Although Mr C had video evidence of the pothole depth, which he offered to share, the council had not taken account of this. We also found that they failed to deal with his complaints reasonably, as they did not acknowledge or respond within the required time-frames, and did not consider all the available evidence. When Mr C complained that the information was inaccurate, the council double-checked the accident inspection report they had relied on, but did not compare this to documents that would have shown that the information was inaccurate.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their procedures for identifying, logging and tracking complaints, to ensure that the time-frames in the complaints handling procedure are met;
• remind complaints handling staff of the importance of considering and testing all the evidence available, particularly where factual issues are disputed by the complainant;
• issue a written apology to Mr C for the failings our investigation found;
• consider amending their job ticket templates, so that it is clear the published 'target date' is for inspection rather than repair, and to include the target date for repairs; and
• reconsider Mr C's claim, in line with their procedures.

Summary

Ms C, who is an advocate, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A) about the way staff at a council-run community centre (the centre) communicated with her; that they had allowed photographs to be taken of her children against her wishes; failed to properly investigate an allegation that a staff member had referred in an offensive way to one of her children; and unreasonably failed to allow one of her children to go on a trip.

Ms A complained that staff at the centre did not provide her with information about events in the accessible format she had requested. Our investigation found that the council had acknowledged that there had been some inconsistency in providing information to Ms A in the format she had requested. Action was taken by the council to ensure that all communication was appropriate to Ms A's needs and, as this action had been taken, the council did not uphold Ms A's complaint on this issue. We considered that the action taken by the council had been reasonable and we did not uphold Ms C's complaint about this.

In relation to photographs taken of Ms A's children during a trip, Ms A had completed a form specifically refusing permission for her children to be photographed. The council acknowledged their error and apologised for this. As a result of Ms A's complaint, the council arranged staff training and also arranged for the deletion of the photographs in the presence of Ms A and her advocate. We considered that this was reasonable.

In relation to Ms C's other complaints about allegations of an offensive term being used towards her child, and her child's exclusion from a trip, we found that neither of these complaints could be substantiated with evidence, so we did not uphold these complaints.